Agreeable Argument Etiquette

[SnakeTrousers]

You guys argue way too fucking much. Way too fucking much. I find it hard to post here lately because it seems you can't go two threads without tripping over paragraphs and paragraphs - hell, entire ESSAYS - devoted to angry bickering over what is, 90% of the time, inconsequential bullshit.

On the off chance that I'm not the only one who finds this tendency extremely tedious and frustrating, I wanted to gather suggestions from ye for some general argument etiquette, some ideas on how we might make the frequent "debating" less... abrasive. After all, how can you expect to get anywhere with anyone when we're all frustrated? That frustration only serves to lead us into ever more bitter and vicious circles, and its tiresome. Soul-sapping, even.

My own suggestion: [HEADING=1]PACE YOURSELVES.[/HEADING] It's absurd seeing people devote an entire dissertation to a virtual slap-fight with some strangers over a cartoon, but if you absolutely must, at least save it for a few pages in. There's nothing more discouraging than scrolling down the first page of a thread only to find that it's devolved into a novella's worth of passive-aggressive sneering within the first five posts.

I think, on page one, one paragraph should probably be enough. Page two, two paragraphs, page three... you get the idea. Resist the urge to jump down each other's throats, at least until the ball has actually gotten rolling.

 

[tippy2k2]

You guys argue way too fucking much. Way too fucking much.

Nah Uh! YOU argue way too much!!!11!1!

Spoiler

OT: I have two "rules" or whatever you'd call them when I am engaging in online verbal fistacuffs. If people break one of the two rules (and I do follow my own rules...or at least I try my best with #2 since it's kind of gray), I drop out of the conversation.

Rule #1: Don't be that guy that changes my quote and then says "Fixed that for you". (*Sigh...go ahead and start quoting this and changing it to say I love it; happens every time )

Seriously...piss off. If you can't respect my opinion enough to mess with what I'm saying, you're not worth talking to. I don't know why it bugs me so much but that is the quickest way to piss me off if you're looking to make me mad for some reason (what did I do to you? D

Rule #2: Speak to me like you would want to be spoken to and be open to changing your mind

I've broken off conversations before with people that I ended up agreeing with. There was a specific thread a while ago and I broke off talking to someone because they kept talking down at me. I ended up talking to another person who ultimately helped me understand where and why I was wrong to say what I was saying (and I changed accordingly). I know things can get heated at times but you're only hurting your own argument if you're just going to lash out at me. I could agree with everything you are saying but because you are being an ass about it, your message is going to get buried and I'm not going to listen to you.

 

[Recusant]

I have to disagree. By its very nature, arguing over a complex issue is going in to involve complex ideas; posts inevitably will (and indeed, should be) long. This is a forum, not a chat room or twitter; the only reason to try for brevity is if you're not having an argument, or even an in-depth discussion, but just casual conversation. If anything, we should be seeing more long posts.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I find it kind of funny when people expect sources. The problem is, if I'm to put actual effort into a debate, I need a modicum of respect for the person I'm arguing with, and a belief that they have the capacity to change their views when confronted with evidence. I have those feelings towards very few people on the internet. I therefore find demanding sources a very arrogant thing to do. If you think I'm wrong, you're welcome to dismiss me. If you think I might be right, you're welcome to google it. Just don't expect me to waste my time doing research for you, finding an accessible source for some study I read in a textbook two years ago.

Will I throw in my two cents if I feel something hasn't been considered? Of course. Will I back up my claims? You fucking bet I won't.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Personally, I find the biggest issue to be that there seems an expectation here (and maybe elsewhere, but this is the only forum I visit regularly) that everyone wants a debate out of everything they post. Sometimes you just want to post your thoughts on something. Sometimes you just want to have an open discussion or conversation. Sometimes (aka most of the time) when you quote someone and question their post, it's not a direct personal attack. Far too often here, however, that's not how it goes. Just by posting here you're basically putting yourself out there in the path of the charging angry high school debate club cavalry.

 

[JoJo]

In a somewhat different direction, if arguing about laws or legal systems, there should always be a jurisdiction, state or nation attached to any claims, otherwise with over two hundred countries and dependencies out there anyone could be right. Too often have I seen strongly-worded statements like "Cycling with a chicken strapped to the back of your head is illegal!" where it may be in the poster's jurisdiction but not in many others.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

I have to disagree. By its very nature, arguing over a complex issue is going in to involve complex ideas; posts inevitably will (and indeed, should be) long. This is a forum, not a chat room or twitter; the only reason to try for brevity is if you're not having an argument, or even an in-depth discussion, but just casual conversation. If anything, we should be seeing more long posts.

I can deal with long posts, but I feel that the conversation should get a chance to get rolling before they start showing up. You refine your argument to a point, then expand over time. When people jump straight into the multi-paragraph rants it strikes me as being kind of... egotistical, lacking in restraint. It's trying to shut the other person down by not letting them get a word in edgewise. An argument is not a one sided thing, it shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[AwesomeHatMan]

The biggest problem is people misundersand what it means to win an argument... Having your opinion being better voiced, better supported or even correct is not what makes you win. What makes you win is when both people agree. Either both people win or both people lose...

 

[AwesomeHatMan]

I like to eat dead babies as part of my worship to the great lord Satan and you can quote me on that!

Wow tippy that's very shocking I would never have expected you to say that

Seriously though, there really should be something that prevents you from editing others quotes. Like you pick the start and the finish of the quote you'd like and you can't change anything they say. Could a mod put this in somehow?

 

[SKBPinkie]

Don't do it over the internet.

Debate / discussion IRL is infinitely better, more well-mannered, more meaningful, better conveyance of tone / body language, etc.Leave complex topics like religion and politics for real life, and simpler topics like gaming or movies for the internet. Hell, even those devolve into toxic garbage, but hey - gotta use these forums for something.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Paragraph posting and point by point nitpicking isn't anything new for the Escapist but I will say a lot of it has been happening since August. At this point I think the golden rule should apply to quoting: One should quote others as one would like others to quote oneself. So if you wouldn't enjoy reading a sarcastic, condescending, character assassinating reply to your posts; don't do it to others.

I'm too cynical to think anyone will actually do it here now. That's probably just my bias against posters migrating from imageboards talking though. I've never enjoyed shit-posting 'culture' so when I see that kind of attitude here, I get annoyed and disengage entirely.

 

[Dizchu]

My main issue is with people reading someone else's argument and subsequently making a whole bunch of assumptions about their beliefs, gender, sexuality, skin colour, nationality, star sign, favourite soft drink, etc. I have seen people misgendered, dismissed outright for a tenuous link with certain political beliefs, called "ignorant Americans" despite being from Europe...

This sort of behaviour comes across to me as tactics used by someone who already has a complete script in their head of how they want the argument to be conducted. When the opponent doesn't follow that script, they either assume that what they "actually meant" was what was pre-scripted or that they're lying, or they might even ignore what was said and continue with said script without acknowledging the other person's point.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

What really gets me down is the incredibly savage passive-aggressiveness sniping people do in their posts.
Also, twisting people's word to mean something else entirely or how they bog you down with loaded questions and moving goal-posts and..and everything underhanded and it's fallacy in the book actually.
Don't get me started on the amounts of [citation needed] and Sources? that's now being required for saying anything at all.

That is one of the major reasons I don't engage in serious debate on these boards.

Lately it's gotten so bad that I've had to maintain an personal list of posters that I absolutely wont engage with, at all.
I dislike ignoring people on general as I have no problem not posting a scathing response and I really don't want do miss what they are writing.
Uh, I hope I can't get in trouble for mention my personal do-not-engage list..

Arguing/debating should really be done in good faith and instead of attacking people, perhaps a simple request for a bit more clarification on the point.

 

[Recusant]

I can deal with long posts, but I feel that the conversation should get a chance to get rolling before they start showing up. You refine your argument to a point, then expand over time. When people jump straight into the multi-paragraph rants it strikes me as being kind of... egotistical, lacking in restraint. It's trying to shut the other person down by not letting them get a word in edgewise. An argument is not a one sided thing, it shouldn't be treated as such.

Again I disagree. While I can understand that an idea expressed over multiple paragraphs can be rambling and disjointed, even managing to derail the points it's trying to make, that's not inherent to something being long; it's a call for concision, not brevity. The obvious parallel, as you noted, would be a person in a spoken discussion completely dominating the conversation, not letting anyone else get a word in edgewise. But the comparison doesn't hold up. As I mentioned above, this isn't a chat room; only the absolute busiest topics in the busiest forums move so quickly that the pace of incoming posts derails conversations. My posting this doesn't keep you from posting something of your own; indeed, you could be typing something out even as I'm typing this. Making brief points and only backing them up if they're challenged seems... insulting, to be blunt; implying that the other people in the discussion couldn't handle an idea put forth in anything but bullet points and sound bites. If you can see the flaws in or problems with an argument, what purpose does delaying pointing them out and giving justifications/explanations/ways around them until someone has pointed them out serve?

Don't do it over the internet.

Debate / discussion IRL is infinitely better, more well-mannered, more meaningful, better conveyance of tone / body language, etc.Leave complex topics like religion and politics for real life, and simpler topics like gaming or movies for the internet. Hell, even those devolve into toxic garbage, but hey - gotta use these forums for something.

Come, now. We've got people on this forum from all over the world; why should we limit ourselves to those around us? Geographical proximity often (not always, but often) equates to shared cultural background and thus similar perspectives; the internet can quickly and nigh-effortlessly broaden your horizons. As a tool for discussion, it admittedly leaves much to be desired, but to abandon the effort simply because of the challenges it poses is just giving up. The world will not be made a more pleasant place by the people who wish to make it one deciding not to try.

 

[tippy2k2]

Wow tippy that's very sexy and awesome thing of you to say! Have I mentioned how handsome you are as well?

Seriously though, there really should be something that prevents you from editing others quotes. Like you pick the start and the finish of the quote you'd like and you can't change anything they say. Could a mod put this in somehow?

There's nothing the Mods could do about that as it's code-side (although if it was really bad, I'm guessing you could talk to the Mods and get a warning slapped on the offending poster).

My guess is that there's a reason (technical or otherwise) why the quoting system works the way it does. You could ask The Tech Team [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Tech-Team] if you were super curious about it.

 

[sky14kemea]

U wot? FIGHT ME!!

I like to eat dead babies as part of my worship to the great lord Satan and you can quote me on that!

Wow tippy that's very shocking I would never have expected you to say that

Seriously though, there really should be something that prevents you from editing others quotes. Like you pick the start and the finish of the quote you'd like and you can't change anything they say. Could a mod put this in somehow?

If you report the post that has the edited quote in (and its contents are against the rules) they can give out a punishment for it.

They usually check which post is being quoted when stuff like that is reported, so they'd know it isn't what you've actually said.

If it's just a general thing then do what Tippy said and ask the Techies.

 

[Bat Vader]

I'll admit the over excessive amount of arguing that has been going on is what has soured me to post on the forums lately. I can't go a few posts without some users getting into an argument about something or another. Thankfully The Escapist has usergroups though so I can talk there.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

dot dot dot

Wuh?

Er sorry... I mean, while I can see your point about this not being chat room, I don't think that completely eliminates the need to use space conservatively. For me it's an issue of accessibility: it seems unrealistic to expect someone to engage with a big wall of text without having some prior investment in the conversation. Beyond that, taking things slowly at first gives you more flexibility to adjust and adapt your argument in response to the other person's. When we're having to pick whole essays worth of text apart point-by-point, the discussion turns stale and presumptuous; a simple misinterpretation can (and often does) derail the debate when so much is riding on a single post.

Perhaps you feel differently, but sticking to this rule seems to be working out alright for us thus far. This is one of the more engaging back-and-forth's I've had on these forums.

 

[TheMightyMeekling]

My first rule is: Assume lack of information where lack of information may be substituted for malice. I.e, don't assume that everyone is your clone and has the exact definition of words present as you do.

Second rule: Smartassery is not a viable substitute for an actual logically sound argument.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

Factual Evidence > Anecdotal Evidence. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people saying "Yeah well someone I know had a negative experience with X" and then holding that up as if it's irrefutable, debate-ending proof of X being bad. It isn't, it's just a really weak argument.

My main advice for internet arguments (and any argument, come to think of it) is this; know when to quit. Far too often, especially here, debates rage on and on, getting increasingly heated and off-topic, because nobody wants to be the one who backs down. Sometimes you just have to recognise that you're not going to change the other person's mind, and they're not going to change yours, so maybe it's best to just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Besides, as the saying goes, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."